Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chloroquine, past and present

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#61

Post by gnulinux »

andreygrehov wrote: post #19

Does anyone have any information about the Favipiravir testing going on in China? From what I read, it has a 90% success rate treating coronavirus AND is a super safe drug in general.

I read this X% success rate for many drugs, Remdesivir, chloroquine etc... What does it mean? Giving no drug, just ventilator alone has 97% success rate right? So how do we know that that 90% is due to the drug and not, you know, immune system itself? Moreover, a lot of people keep saying both Remdesivir and chloroquine are in official treatment suggestions in Italy, and seeing Italy is suffering a pretty bad mortality rate, how do we even know these drugs are better than placebo?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#62

Post by cameldrv »

We definitely want more studies, but IMO we're reaching a tipping point. We have anecdotal evidence from China and South Korea, and this quite flawed, but at least data-containing study from France.

Chloroquine's safety profile isn't great, but the safety profile of COVID is way worse. If you look at Chemotherapy for example, one would never take any of those drugs unless you had cancer.

COVID isn't quite as bad as cancer, but Chloroquine, especially for a short course, isn't anywhere near as bad as most chemo drugs. Many people take it for years as prophylaxis -- not even to treat an existing disease.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#63

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

chimichangga wrote: post #12
cm2187 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than the rumour-mill. There was a scientific study with a small number of patients that showed clear results, and several countries have now launched larger studies to confirm those findings.

Also, Bayer thinks there's enough merit to this to issue their own press release and donate 3M pills. "New data from initial preclinical and evolving clinical research conducted in China, while limited, shows potential for the use of Resochin in treating patients with COVID-19 infection. Bayer in recent days has been in talks with the White House, HHS, CDC, and the FDA, offering any assistance we can provide with a f…

An optimist would say this is Bayer being benevolent, a pessimist would see this as them taking advantage of a situation to make a lot of money out of a possible snake oil during this time of panic.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#64

Post by scotty79 »

AdmiralBumbleB wrote: post #3

This chloroquinine rush is already out of control. My pharmacy is already out of it and is unable to procure from other pharmacies (which are also out already!) My pharmacist placed orders for all her patients to prefill prescriptions (where possible) for the next few months. I can understand a shortage when there's a clear evidence-based need, but the rumour-mill hasn't even ramped to full bore yet and it's already…

I bought chloroquine few weeks ago when there was still plenty of it. A week ago it was out of stock not necessarily due to rush buying but because government bought out all the stock to give it to hospitals to use if it turns out to be effective.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#65

Post by fspeech »

nordsieck wrote: post #58
guiriduro wrote: post #48

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

> Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks…

These are approved drugs so the use would be "off label". Doctors are allowed to prescribe anyway they see fit.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#66

Post by Wowfunhappy »

comicjk wrote: post #47
throwaway894345 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone would like to see the CDC be better funded. Hindsight makes that an obvious mistake, but monitoring C19 should have been their number one priority in any case. From January onwards it was clear that it was the number one threat. There's still no explanation (afaik) for why they rolled their own test instead of using the WHO's test, nor have they effectively communicated their plans for ramping up tes…

They should have been developing more than one test anyway. This reduces the risk of failure, and if you get multiple working tests, it allows some cross-checking to reduce false results. Failure to diversify is also mismanagement (though clearly more money can help you try more things).

I don't agree at all. The WHO had a working test. We just needed to produce as many of them as we possibly could, and send them to labs to set up and validate.

They needed every resource they had going to the confirmed working test. Even if the CDC was better funded, they still would have needed to spend every resource on that.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#67

Post by milofeynman »

hannob wrote: post #50
guiriduro wrote: post #48

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

The possible side effects include permanent blindness. Giving this drug to people while you simply don't know if it does any good is only justifiable if you do it within a properly designed clinical trial. Which is the thing you should do. If you feel lots of people should get this drug - do a large trial. Will give us better data.

Permanent blindness typically takes many weeks / years of use.

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-8633/chloroquine-oral/det...

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#68

Post by jojo2000 »

hannob wrote: post #50
guiriduro wrote: post #48

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

The possible side effects include permanent blindness. Giving this drug to people while you simply don't know if it does any good is only justifiable if you do it within a properly designed clinical trial. Which is the thing you should do. If you feel lots of people should get this drug - do a large trial. Will give us better data.

> The possible side effects include permanent blindness.

Yes, but only with massive doses or when treatment lasts for more than 5 years.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#69

Post by nshepperd »

hannob wrote: post #50
guiriduro wrote: post #48

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

The possible side effects include permanent blindness. Giving this drug to people while you simply don't know if it does any good is only justifiable if you do it within a properly designed clinical trial. Which is the thing you should do. If you feel lots of people should get this drug - do a large trial. Will give us better data.

If you take it for years. Why is everyone ignoring that part?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#70

Post by stcredzero »

cameldrv wrote: post #62

We definitely want more studies, but IMO we're reaching a tipping point. We have anecdotal evidence from China and South Korea, and this quite flawed, but at least data-containing study from France. Chloroquine's safety profile isn't great, but the safety profile of COVID is way worse. If you look at Chemotherapy for example, one would never take any of those drugs unless you had cancer. COVID isn't quite as bad as c…

> COVID isn't quite as bad as cancer, but Chloroquine, especially for a short course, isn't anywhere near as bad as most chemo drugs.

For certain individuals who just happen to have a bad reaction, COVID could well be just as fatal as cancer. In terms of how fast it can kill people, in certain cases, it can be worse than a lot of cancers.

Post reply on HN